riverrat wrote:Should the commish insist upon a more lopsided deal?
Let me get this straight...the guy had a good draft (apparently), and employed a different strategy than the rest of the league to great success. And now, because he's been successful and is moving onto phase two of his strategy, you think the commissioner should punish him by forcing a lopsided trade where he doesn't get equal value for his players?
Do other people in your league have this same frame of mind?
and looking at those starters, it doesn't even seem to me like he went like way overboard on the SPs only in the draft.
he just happened to draft well in pitching.
i mean, he could have taken:
1st round - hitter
2nd round - carp (fair pick)
3rd round - oswalt (fair pick)
4th round - czam (fair pick)
5th round - hitter
6th round - pettitte (bust, but maybe will do better with clemens on board)
7th round - myers (fair)
8th round - hitter
9th round - hitter
10th round - haren (steal)
11th round - lowry (not sure yet)
as for penny (steal), and arroyo (steal), he must have either drafted them real late or picked them off FA. and those 2 pitchers are the real reason why his staff is dominating, not because he went overly pitcher heavy in the draft. he did emphasize pitchers a bit more than hitters, but it doesn't look like he went into the draft with the strategy of getting all aces and trading them in the 2nd half for hitters.
agreed, haren and arroyo could have been had on the wire at some point. and some other good, but questionable guys like lowry could have been had there or even late.
If I was getting carpenter, I'd be thrilled. On the other hand, if I was the guy with carpenter in this particular situation, I would be pleased/satsified with wells.
riverrat wrote:Should the commish insist upon a more lopsided deal?
Let me get this straight...the guy had a good draft (apparently), and employed a different strategy than the rest of the league to great success. And now, because he's been successful and is moving onto phase two of his strategy, you think the commissioner should punish him by forcing a lopsided trade where he doesn't get equal value for his players?
Do other people in your league have this same frame of mind?
thank you
Are you interested in joining a 28 teams dynasty league? If so, PM me.
I used a similar strategy. I drafted Carpenter and Peavy in rounds two and three. I went pitching heavy in the draft because I know my leaguemates and they get desparate for pitching midseason. I just recently traded both for a combination of M. Cabrera, D. Lee, J. Gomes, J. Lugo, T. Coffey.
I am at or near the top of all pitching categories and am struggling in hitting. I am shifting my strengths and weaknesses. It's all about balance. Knowing your strengths and weaknesses and adjusting accordingly.
However, I also had suprising depth at pitching with mid or late round picks of Kazmir, Capuano and Liriano, as well as free agent pickups of Hamels, Jerred Weaver and S. Olsen.
This is an absolutely valid strategy.
Basically I'm complicated.
I have a hard time taking the easy way
I wouldn't call it schizophrenia
But Ill be at least two people today
But if commissioner colludes with the rest of the league to give the guy poor value for his SPs, is that collusion? FB league is commissioner's little universe after all
This is really an embarrassing question. This is the reason that discussions about "should this trade be vetoed?" always become religious holy wars. Because there are some managers out there who can actually think like this. The guy adopts a perfectly valid strategy, and it pays off. He makes the league more interesting, because who wants 12 guys who all manage the same? So now it's time to punish him so that he never dares to innovate or succeed again. Enlightened thinking.
Check out "Atlas Shrugged" in the off-season. I've always thought it basically sucks, because no one in the real world actually thinks like the villains in this book. After reading this thread I'm thinking I gotta cut Ayn Rand some slack...
rainman23 wrote:This is really an embarrassing question. This is the reason that discussions about "should this trade be vetoed?" always become religious holy wars. Because there are some managers out there who can actually think like this. The guy adopts a perfectly valid strategy, and it pays off. He makes the league more interesting, because who wants 12 guys who all manage the same? So now it's time to punish him so that he never dares to innovate or succeed again. Enlightened thinking.
Check out "Atlas Shrugged" in the off-season. I've always thought it basically sucks, because no one in the real world actually thinks like the villains in this book. After reading this thread I'm thinking I gotta cut Ayn Rand some slack...
I'm inclined to agree. The point of the exercise is to manage your team, your way, with your valuations. While there has to be some mechanism in place to prevent collusion, these types of complaints seem awfully sour grapes to me.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by bleach168 » Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:36 pm 
